| EGM tomorrow 08:14 - Jun 29 with 6331 views | judd |
The deadline to nominate proxies for the EGM has now passed so it is very important that as many shareholders as possible attend tomorrow in order to support the motions.
Starts at 7pm in the Ratcliffe Arms, which is a public, not Morton, House. |  |
| |  |
| EGM tomorrow on 10:41 - Jun 29 with 5072 views | 100notout |
I’ve heard roger is expected to turn up - should be interesting |  |
| |
| EGM tomorrow on 11:18 - Jun 29 with 5022 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM tomorrow on 10:41 - Jun 29 by 100notout |
I’ve heard roger is expected to turn up - should be interesting |
I hope Roger does turn up.
He didn't manage a game last year, which for a man who first started Rochdale in 1968 is astounding.
I know where are a few fans who'd love to catch-up with him. |  |
| |
| EGM tomorrow on 11:21 - Jun 29 with 5015 views | judd |
| EGM tomorrow on 10:41 - Jun 29 by 100notout |
I’ve heard roger is expected to turn up - should be interesting |
He is still listed as a shareholder so I sure he be assured of a warm welcome.*
*The sort of warmth associated with pissing your pants | |
| |
| EGM tomorrow on 11:25 - Jun 29 with 5008 views | Sandyman |
| EGM tomorrow on 11:21 - Jun 29 by judd |
He is still listed as a shareholder so I sure he be assured of a warm welcome.*
*The sort of warmth associated with pissing your pants |
* A sort of full plastic pint pot in lieu of a comfort break at Glastonbury (other festivals are available) type welcome. |  | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 11:31 - Jun 29 with 4998 views | RAFCBLUE |
Can't see Matt Southall coming to this EGM either.
He's got to be in the centre of Rome for a Saturday afternoon wedding and evening do.
Perhaps he might threaten to cancel is like he did in October 2021? | |
| |
| EGM tomorrow on 11:35 - Jun 29 with 4973 views | boromat |
| EGM tomorrow on 11:18 - Jun 29 by RAFCBLUE |
I hope Roger does turn up.
He didn't manage a game last year, which for a man who first started Rochdale in 1968 is astounding.
I know where are a few fans who'd love to catch-up with him. |
Wonder if he's bought a season ticket. | |
| |
| EGM tomorrow on 11:38 - Jun 29 with 4954 views | wozzrafc |
Well if anyone associated to the self confessed 'Hostile Takeover' wants to vote against either of the motions then either they have submitted a proxy or will be lurking in the corners.
Will be really interesting to see.
Just a general if Morton House haven't had the shares transferred to them yet but as i understand have a right to proxy are they legally allowed to attend or does it need to be the shareholders named? | | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 13:46 - Jun 29 with 4790 views | TomRAFC |
| EGM tomorrow on 11:38 - Jun 29 by wozzrafc |
Well if anyone associated to the self confessed 'Hostile Takeover' wants to vote against either of the motions then either they have submitted a proxy or will be lurking in the corners.
Will be really interesting to see.
Just a general if Morton House haven't had the shares transferred to them yet but as i understand have a right to proxy are they legally allowed to attend or does it need to be the shareholders named? |
They claimed to have the voting rights for those shares but they've claimed a lot of things. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| EGM tomorrow on 19:21 - Jun 29 with 4559 views | NorthernDale |
| EGM tomorrow on 11:38 - Jun 29 by wozzrafc |
Well if anyone associated to the self confessed 'Hostile Takeover' wants to vote against either of the motions then either they have submitted a proxy or will be lurking in the corners.
Will be really interesting to see.
Just a general if Morton House haven't had the shares transferred to them yet but as i understand have a right to proxy are they legally allowed to attend or does it need to be the shareholders named? |
MH claim to own the shares, along with Baldy, but the question is, can only a director of MH or Baldy vote in any EGM, and it would take some neck from Southall to actually up to vote. Unless Bottomley turns up, which would be more interesting then Baldy.
Also with the new share issue, there share control as now been reduced from 43% to potentially less then 30% (it would interesting to note their actual share control), so in theory they are in a bad position to influence any motion, compared to last summer and only Dale fans not voting, could be a factor. Also, I believe that they tried to buy shares in the latest share issue, but I believe that their attempts were in general rejected. Am I right in my assessment? | | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 21:30 - Jun 29 with 4420 views | wozzrafc |
| EGM tomorrow on 19:21 - Jun 29 by NorthernDale |
MH claim to own the shares, along with Baldy, but the question is, can only a director of MH or Baldy vote in any EGM, and it would take some neck from Southall to actually up to vote. Unless Bottomley turns up, which would be more interesting then Baldy.
Also with the new share issue, there share control as now been reduced from 43% to potentially less then 30% (it would interesting to note their actual share control), so in theory they are in a bad position to influence any motion, compared to last summer and only Dale fans not voting, could be a factor. Also, I believe that they tried to buy shares in the latest share issue, but I believe that their attempts were in general rejected. Am I right in my assessment? |
My understanding is they don’t actually own the shares in name until the transfer has taken place, but have a legal right to decide to vote at any EGM or AGM, I’m not sure they would be entitled to attend. It would need to be the named shareholder or a named proxy submitted by them.
Their shares are now about 23% following the share issue.
The interesting thing is if this motion goes though tomorrow then they wouldn’t be able to take control the way they tried. They would be able to transfer the shares.
The question I have would this rule apply if Morton house subsequently tried to transferred them in the future? | | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 22:26 - Jun 29 with 4317 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM tomorrow on 21:30 - Jun 29 by wozzrafc |
My understanding is they don’t actually own the shares in name until the transfer has taken place, but have a legal right to decide to vote at any EGM or AGM, I’m not sure they would be entitled to attend. It would need to be the named shareholder or a named proxy submitted by them.
Their shares are now about 23% following the share issue.
The interesting thing is if this motion goes though tomorrow then they wouldn’t be able to take control the way they tried. They would be able to transfer the shares.
The question I have would this rule apply if Morton house subsequently tried to transferred them in the future? |
I think there is an Article of Association that tells how shares can be transferred and that would be the thing that would have to be followed. | |
| |
| EGM tomorrow on 00:19 - Jun 30 with 4228 views | Sandyman |
| EGM tomorrow on 22:26 - Jun 29 by RAFCBLUE |
I think there is an Article of Association that tells how shares can be transferred and that would be the thing that would have to be followed. |
There are also EFL rules on such things that haven't been followed, and the EFL have ruled accordingly.
'let the purchaser beware, for he ought not to be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party' | | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 08:18 - Jun 30 with 4070 views | wozzrafc |
| EGM tomorrow on 00:19 - Jun 30 by Sandyman |
There are also EFL rules on such things that haven't been followed, and the EFL have ruled accordingly.
'let the purchaser beware, for he ought not to be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party' |
My question would be which set of rules would they be measured against. The old set of rules were in place when they supposedly bought the shares and attempted to take the club over, but they haven’t transferred them.
Now the new rules are in place if they now transfer the place would they have to meet the old or new rules.
Hopefully the latter | | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 02:39 - Jul 1 with 3679 views | jacko_dale |
Seeing as both resolutions were passed unanimously, one can only assume Roger didn't have the gall to show his face! | | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 09:12 - Jul 1 with 3437 views | DaleiLama |
| EGM tomorrow on 02:39 - Jul 1 by jacko_dale |
Seeing as both resolutions were passed unanimously, one can only assume Roger didn't have the gall to show his face! |
He sent Asterix as his proxy  |  |
| |
| EGM tomorrow on 09:14 - Jul 1 with 3405 views | boromat |
| EGM tomorrow on 02:39 - Jul 1 by jacko_dale |
Seeing as both resolutions were passed unanimously, one can only assume Roger didn't have the gall to show his face! |
Even if he had I'm not sure it would have made a difference on the resolutions. Would have made it a more interesting EGM though 😂. | |
| |
| EGM tomorrow on 09:28 - Jul 1 with 3372 views | kel |
Many probably hoped he would given the large turnout. He’d have been lucky to make it out alive though I reckon. |  | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 09:41 - Jul 1 with 3339 views | TomRAFC |
I thought Morton House had a proxy, so they could rally against these prejudiced EGMs? | |
| |
| EGM tomorrow on 10:12 - Jul 1 with 3267 views | judd |
| EGM tomorrow on 09:41 - Jul 1 by TomRAFC |
I thought Morton House had a proxy, so they could rally against these prejudiced EGMs? |
Morton House or any of their current/former directors nor contracted advisors are listed as shareholders. | |
| |
| EGM tomorrow on 10:44 - Jul 1 with 3174 views | TomRAFC |
| EGM tomorrow on 10:12 - Jul 1 by judd |
Morton House or any of their current/former directors nor contracted advisors are listed as shareholders. |
Quite right, I didn't phrase my point too well.
Morton House were claiming to have the voting rights for those shares at one point, yet no such votes have ever been cast. | |
| |
| EGM tomorrow on 14:54 - Jul 1 with 2796 views | wozzrafc |
| EGM tomorrow on 10:44 - Jul 1 by TomRAFC |
Quite right, I didn't phrase my point too well.
Morton House were claiming to have the voting rights for those shares at one point, yet no such votes have ever been cast. |
My understanding is while they don’t directly own the shares, but the shareholders have a legal right to vote how instructed, or give a proxy instructions how to vote until the shares were transferred. I’m sure I read it on here somewhere months back.
They didn’t request a proxy so we can only assume they choose not to vote.
They now only hold about 23% of the shares so it’s unlikely they could prevent a motion going through. even if they requested a counted vote.
My guess is given this is required by the EFL they decided it was pointless to object. | | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 15:11 - Jul 1 with 2750 views | fermin |
| EGM tomorrow on 14:54 - Jul 1 by wozzrafc |
My understanding is while they don’t directly own the shares, but the shareholders have a legal right to vote how instructed, or give a proxy instructions how to vote until the shares were transferred. I’m sure I read it on here somewhere months back.
They didn’t request a proxy so we can only assume they choose not to vote.
They now only hold about 23% of the shares so it’s unlikely they could prevent a motion going through. even if they requested a counted vote.
My guess is given this is required by the EFL they decided it was pointless to object. |
Would it be correct to say that now the total shares sold to MH (in theory anyway) are less than the EFL threshold for ownership the transfer registrations can take place or have to take place? In other words, can the directors continue to refuse to register the transfers if they no longer affect ownership under EFL rules?
In saying this, I assume the total is now under the threshold. |  | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 15:48 - Jul 1 with 2653 views | wozzrafc |
| EGM tomorrow on 15:11 - Jul 1 by fermin |
Would it be correct to say that now the total shares sold to MH (in theory anyway) are less than the EFL threshold for ownership the transfer registrations can take place or have to take place? In other words, can the directors continue to refuse to register the transfers if they no longer affect ownership under EFL rules?
In saying this, I assume the total is now under the threshold. |
Don’t know for sure ?
I would say though that given the shares purchase are subject of an EFL investigation and they had been told not to transfer them that will probably need to be sorted out first. | | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 16:35 - Jul 1 with 2552 views | 49thseason |
Is there not now a question regarding the money used to buy the shares? Was this money legally obtained? Can MH account for where the money came from in the first place? Do they have Invoice receipts, relevant tax documents etc? It would be difficult for the Club to permit the shares to be transferred if there is a chance that they might have been bought using the proceeds of a crime. |  | | |
| EGM tomorrow on 18:18 - Jul 1 with 2407 views | wozzrafc |
| EGM tomorrow on 16:35 - Jul 1 by 49thseason |
Is there not now a question regarding the money used to buy the shares? Was this money legally obtained? Can MH account for where the money came from in the first place? Do they have Invoice receipts, relevant tax documents etc? It would be difficult for the Club to permit the shares to be transferred if there is a chance that they might have been bought using the proceeds of a crime. |
Absolutely spot on !! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
